An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
So if you are looking to buy a dual-core don't even waste your money on an aftermarket heatsink. Throw a nice fan on it, use AS5, lap it and it would probably own the XP-90.
Last edited by KoolDrew on Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
I read about this a while ago. I'm really suprised (and glad) that AMD will do this. It seems like cpu companies usually try to but the bare minimum on, so that there's not much room for overclocking.
I wouldn't buy a 3800+ dual core. I'd go for at least a 4400+ w/ the 1MB L2 cache per core. My point is that a Venice overclocked to 2.7GHz outperforms the dual cores at gaming and a lot of other things (except rendering and multithreaded apps), and it costs hundreds less, giving you more room for heatsinks like the XP120.
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
I wouldn't buy a 3800+ dual core. I'd go for at least a 4400+ w/ the 1MB L2 cache per core.
Do you even bother considering prices before saying crap like this? The 4400+ is $458 while the X2 4200+ is $358. Both run at 2.2GHz. All you get for paying $100 more is more cache. Talk about a complete waste of money.
The ONLY X2's I would consder would be the 3800+ and 4200+. The 4400+ is a complete waste of money as I explained above and the 4800+ is $172 more expensive only for a 200MHz increase.
Also, unless you are planning on runnign stock speeds I wouldn't even consider an X2. The Opterons have more cache (then the Manchesters), are not much more expensive and they overclock better.
Quote:
My point is that a Venice overclocked to 2.7GHz outperforms the dual cores at gaming and a lot of other things (except rendering and multithreaded apps)
You are forgetting the main advantage of even having a dual-core...multitasking.
Last edited by KoolDrew on Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
I wouldn't buy a 3800+ dual core. I'd go for at least a 4400+ w/ the 1MB L2 cache per core.
Do you even bother considering prices before saying crap like this? The 4400+ is $458 while the X2 4200+ is $358. Both run at 2.2GHz. All you get for paying $100 more is more cache. Talk about a complete waste of money.
The ONLY X2's I would consder would be the 3800+ and 4200+. The 4400+ is a complete waste of money as I explained above and the 4800+ is $172 more expensive only for a 200MHz increase.
Also, unless you are planning on runnign stock speeds I wouldn't even consider an X2. The Opterons have more cache (then the Manchesters), are not much more expensive and they overclock better.
Quote:
My point is that a Venice overclocked to 2.7GHz outperforms the dual cores at gaming and a lot of other things (except rendering and multithreaded apps)
You are forgetting the main advantage of even having a dual-core...multitasking.
2MB L2 cache might be a waste of money in your book, but for hardcore video encoders/renderers, 2MB L2 cache can make a considerable difference. Maybe not for gaming, but you cannot say the difference is negligible for just about anything else.
Look at that page and the next. Don't tell me the 200MHz speed difference is giving the 4800+ that much of a lead over the 4200+....
So, you tell me now. How can you tell me crap like this? If I was looking at a dual core X2 and my purpose was video/audio encoding/rendering, I'd take a dual core with 2MB of L2 cache.
I'm happily surprised. Around here a CNPS9500 or XP-90 costs upwards of $70 which may not seem like much but it can make or break the bank. :P
Yes, but a dual core costs at least 400$. I'm sure you could get an Athlon 64 + XP120 for less than that. ;)
Multithreaded apps are the future, IMO buying a single core processor these days is a waste. Even right now dual core procs greatly benefit people who do a lot of multitasking (which I do). I wouldn't mind paying $400 CDN for an Opteron 165 (which is what it costs) and be able to overclock to perform like a FX-60. On the other hand an Athlon 64 + XP-120 won't have the same cache and it won't be dual core.
Don't tell me the 200MHz speed difference is giving the 4800+ that much of a lead over the 4200+....
Stop assuming. Unless there is only one independant variable you cannot draw any conclusions.
Quote:
If I was looking at a dual core X2 and my purpose was video/audio encoding/rendering, I'd take a dual core with 2MB of L2 cache.
The keyword being if. Your original statement was \"I'd go for at least a 4400+ w/ the 1MB L2 cache per core\" without any mention of the task at hand. Also, you have yet to actually prove the difference in cache makes a difference large enough to be worth it in a/v encoding and rendering.
Quote:
The 4800+ outperforms the 3800+ by quite a big margin
Again, you cannot draw such conclusions with more then one independant variable. Find reviews that compare the 4200+ vs 4400+ and the 4600+ vs 4800+.
Don't tell me the 200MHz speed difference is giving the 4800+ that much of a lead over the 4200+....
Stop assuming. Unless there is only one independant variable you cannot draw any conclusions.
Quote:
If I was looking at a dual core X2 and my purpose was video/audio encoding/rendering, I'd take a dual core with 2MB of L2 cache.
The keyword being if. Your original statement was \"I'd go for at least a 4400+ w/ the 1MB L2 cache per core\" without any mention of the task at hand. Also, you have yet to actually prove the difference in cache makes a difference large enough to be worth it in a/v encoding and rendering.
Quote:
The 4800+ outperforms the 3800+ by quite a big margin
Again, you cannot draw such conclusions with more then one independant variable. Find reviews that compare the 4200+ vs 4400+ and the 4600+ vs 4800+.
You said yourself that people who go with dual cores go mostly for multitasking and rendering/encoding. So, that is the purpose with which I said I would choose a 4400+.
In all the articles I posted, what are the differences? Please show, as I see that in each test, the different dual cores are tested in the same environment with the same testing configurations. And I just proved how the cache does make a difference. *Actually* take a look at all the links I posted. The 4800+ w/ more cache outperforms the 4200+ w/ less cache, same with the 4800 versus 3800.
I'll see if I can find for you a 3800 vs 4200 vs 4400 vs 4600 vs 4800 dual core article.
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
The difference is that the CPU's tested are all running at a different clock speed. In order for you to prove what you are saying there needs to be only one independant variable. That means only the cache would be different. That is why I said 4200 vs 4400 and 4600 vs 4800. The only difference between them is the amount of cache. They run at the same clock speed.
Quote:
The 4800+ w/ more cache outperforms the 4200+ w/ less cache, same with the 4800 versus 3800.
Again, how can you say this is due to the amount of cache?
Last edited by KoolDrew on Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
